When I wrote In Sacred Loneliness, I was committed to producing a moderate,
but honest, treatment of a difficult subject. I began the project due to an
interest in Eliza Snow and her Smith sister wives, not because I wanted to
focus on Joseph Smith and his polygamy. But I decided not to avoid the
issue of the marriage to Smith, as it was an important experience in their
lives.

Even though I understand that some will read my book only to glean
"negative" details about Joseph Smith's polygamy, I am cheered when I find
people who have read the book all the way through and have sympathetically
relived the lives of 33 fascinating, remarkable women. Judging from their
"review" of my book, the Tanners are not among that group. They merely
excerpt passages about Joseph Smith for sensational effect.

As I read through their treatment of my book, I once again recognized
aspects of their writing that are problematic for me. Though I appreciate
their sincerity, and they are definitely a cut above anti-Mormons such as
Ed Decker, and though they have done LDS readers a service in republishing
early LDS-related books (though often sensational anti-Mormon exposes),
in
matters of interpretation, I have not found them to be reliable. For a
treatment of their limitations by a respected non-LDS historian, see
Lawrence Foster, "Career Apostates: Reflections on the Works of Jerald and
Sandra Tanner," in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Summer 1984), 35-
64, revised and reprinted in Roger D. Launius and Linda Thatcher, eds.,
Differing Visions: Dissenters in Mormon History (Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, 1994). Foster is especially telling when he criticizes the
Tanners for applying an extreme negative critique to Mormonism, but not
being willing to apply the same critique to their own Biblical and
Protestant tradition. (p. 52.)

While the Tanners constantly accuse the LDS church of dishonesty, coverups,
and hypocrisy, they themselves may be open to some of the same charges. I
dislike Mormon history that systematically censors out anything
problematic, tragic, or reflecting human fallibility (i.e., real humanity)
in church members or culture. This kind of history is, to me, dishonest,
and the opposite of "faith-promoting." (Authentic faith is never dependent
on dishonesty or covering up the balanced truth.) Furthermore, this kind
of
history is often insipid and sentimental.

But on the other hand, I also dislike Mormon history that systematically
censors out anything "positive." Mormon history is filled with wonderful
people who have performed authentically Christlike actions. There are many
stories of heroism and sacrifice. While some church leaders have been
authoritarian and controlling, others have been warm and inclusive. Anyone
who continually hammers on only the negative is guilty of censorship and
coverup, just as is the person who censors out the negative. Both write
unrealistic and unbelievable history. Furthermore, the person who includes
only the negative can be guilty of sensationalism and the low moral
atmosphere of yellow journalism. I sympathize with the Tanners in wanting
to redress an oversimplified "positive" history, but their oversimplified
"negative" history is just as bad.

In my view, the most honest Mormon history is a history that attempts to
have balance, that is not afraid of negative or positive. When "negative"
is found, balanced history will try to understand it, put it into
historical and psychological context, instead of oversimplifying and
sensationalizing it. On the other hand, positive events should not be
turned into hagiography (one should not lose sight of the limited human
dimensions of even very good people). Human beings, human social groups,
and historical events are, of course, very complex. I remember my first
reading of the Tanner's Shadow and Reality -- you come away from it
believing that there has been no good Mormon at any time in all of Mormon
history. The true story, of course, is that there are good Mormons, bad
Mormons, and everything in between. The Tanners, in their thirst for
negative judgment, radically oversimplify human history.

So I respect the Tanners' sincerity, but believe they have fallen into a
trap. It is a natural human tendency to react against extremism by a
contrary extremism. In other words, when conservative Mormons produce
history without shadows, human faults, or problems, it is easy to respond
by producing history intended to refute it that includes only shadows,
human faults and problems. But that history is as unbelievable as the
history it responds against. Even though some of the details may be true
(as in the overidealized positive history), the whole perspective is false.
The honest reaction to dishonest extremist history is to write balanced
history.

If the Tanners had been committed to providing a balanced perspective in
discussing Mormon polygamy, they might have emphasized that polygamy was
an
accepted part of the culture of the Old Testament, practiced by a great
prophet such as Abraham, so is not inherently evil. It is very
understandable that a restorationist religion such as Mormonism would feel
that it was necessary to "restore" it. Personally, I think that many
elements of the Old Testament were not eternal, but related to the Semitic
culture of the day, and that polygamy was a very patriarchal custom that
does not fit with our present culture, in which women are seen as equal
human beings. But if you had the restorationist idea that everything in the
Bible needed to be restored (as many Protestants in early America and
Protestant Europe did), practicing polygamy is very understandable, and
given that limited perspective, even courageous. In addition, the Tanners
may have known that other Protestant groups (such as the early Anabaptists)
believed in polygamy and practiced it, and that Luther sanctioned polygamy
- -- but they did not mention this. A book that gives some of this background
is John Cairncross, After Polygamy Was Made a Sin (London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul, 1974) (cited in my book on p. 640), especially pp. 36, 49.
Luther and polygamy is a fascinating, complicated story that also includes
disparities between public pronouncement and private practice, just as we
find throughout the history of Mormon polygamy.

The Tanners made great mileage out of Joseph Smith's marriage to his
youngest wife, Helen Mar Kimball. However, they failed to mention that I
wrote that there is absolutely no evidence that there was any sexuality in
the marriage, and I suggest that, following later practice in Utah, there
may have been no sexuality. (p. 638) All the evidence points to this
marriage as a primarily dynastic marriage. Furthermore, in the Protestant
polygamist tradition, it is common to find examples of marriages to young
teenagers. (Cairncross, p. 14.) I strongly disapprove of polygamous
marriages involving teenage women, but my point is that it is inconsistent
and unfair for a Protestant to denounce Mormons for doing such things while
not denouncing his or her own tradition.

In the case of polyandry, the Tanners, if they had been committed to
balance, might have admitted (as I pointed out in my book, p. 21) that many
sincere, intelligent Protestant ministers in Joseph Smith's environment
were developing theologies including "spiritual wife" systems. The New York
Burned Over District era was a time of great religious ferment, resulting
in many utopian colonies and a great deal of marital experimentation. (See
Lawrence Foster's fine book, Religion and Sexuality, which considers Mormon
polygamy in the context of two other early American Christian religions,
the Shakers and the Oneida colony; and see books cited on my p. 640.)

On an individual basis, Mormons made many mistakes with polygamy, a social
system that I believe does not work for "modern" (nineteenth and twentieth
century) women. As I mentioned earlier, I do not think polygamy is an
eternal system that needed to be "restored"; it is rather a cultural
artifact from Semitic culture, resurrected by restorationist enthusiasm.
But it is inconsistent for Protestants to accuse Mormons of gross sin in
practicing polygamy when they accept the Old Testament, with its righteous
polygamous prophets, and have polygamous Protestants in their background,
motivated by the same restorationist enthusiam. I titled one of my chapters
"Latter-day Hagar." Even Abraham, though a righteous prophet, had human
failings, and did one of his plural wives a serious injustice by casting
her out of his household when pressured by his first wife.

Some might ask me, what about many statements by General Authorities saying
that polygamy was an eternal principle? I believe in Joseph Smith's adage
that "a prophet is not always a prophet"; he, and other Mormon leaders, may
have had moments of inspiration, and other moments in which they were
expressing their own limited, fallible views. As I state in my book (p. 629), I am a practicing Mormon, of a liberal, Lowell Bennion sort, but I
reject absolutist, oversimplified views of religion -- the idea that
religious leaders, Biblical or modern, Mormon or Protestant, can be perfect
or infallible. I think a non-absolutist view of religion, that allows for
cultural and human complexity, is the only religious viewpoint that works,
for the thoughtful believer.

While reading the Tanners treatment of my book, I was reminded of another
technique they use that can distort an author's meaning. First of all, in
choosing to reprint passages from an author's writing for sensationalist
effect, they ignore the author's attempts at providing context. But then
the quotations are covered with phrases in bold added by the Tanners
without attribution, which further sensationalizes and distorts the
author's tone. In legal documents, when the author quotes and adds
underlining or bolding to the quotes, he or she is required to expressly
point out that she or he has added the emphasis. Most respected historians
use this technique (adding emphasis to someone else's writing) only
sparingly, if at all, probably because, if not used carefully, it can
distort the integrity of the quoted material. The Tanners use it almost
with the majority of their quotes, and never point out their added
emphasis.

Finally, my wish for the Tanners is that they arrive at a more balanced
view of Mormonism and their cultural heritage, even if they continue to
practice in a Protestant Christian church (which practice I respect). I
suspect the Tanners merely looked through my book for negative
proof-texting; if so, I hope someday they actually read it completely.
Personally, writing In Sacred Loneliness, experiencing the greatness of
those thirty or so early Mormon women for five years, caused me to deepen
my commitment to my Mormon heritage (within the context of a liberal,
non-absolutist faith). I want to be part of the same church those women
were part of -- though I am committed to helping the church abandon
extremist authoritarianism, censorship of history, and anti-feminism,
whenever those things are manifested in the church.